Document begins

Major Supporters & Champions Strategy — Stage 1

Status: DRAFT — working document for the steering group. Not for public release. Requires human sign-off before any outreach begins (fundraising-language gate). Stage: Stage 1 — Gauging Interest. Version: v0.1 — 24 June 2026 Owner: Billie (steering group lead) — relationship lead for all high-capacity approaches. Companion documents: major-supporters-kit.md (the practical outreach kit) and major-supporters-prospect-list.md (the named, researched prospect list).

⚠️ Read this first — what this strategy is and is not

This is a plan for inviting a small number of high-capacity, high-credibility Tasmanians to help the project find out whether it is feasible — by lending their name, opening doors, contributing expertise, or making a philanthropic gift toward the cost of the feasibility work itself.

It is not a capital raise. At Stage 1 no money is being raised from the public, no co-operative shares or investment instruments exist, and no financial return, dividend, interest, or capital repayment is offered to anyone. The strategy must never read like an investment offer. See message_house.md — the three hard stops there apply here verbatim.

This document does not state or imply that:

• the project will buy, or has agreed to buy, the property;
• any person has agreed to sell on terms favourable to a community group;
• any supporter or donor will receive a financial return, dividend, interest, equity, or capital repayment;
• a gift to the feasibility fund buys influence over, or a stake in, any future co-operative;
• the co-operative could itself hold a liquor licence;
• the project will definitely proceed.

All of these are open, conditional, and subject to professional advice and community decision.

1. Why this strategy exists

The draft pre-feasibility study identified four professional inputs the project does not yet hold and cannot responsibly skip: an independent property valuation, a commissioned building-condition and heritage-works assessment, a costed financial model, and a legal options paper. These are Stage-2 tasks, and they cost money — money the community-conversation model (EOIs, kitchen-table conversations) is not designed to raise and should not be asked to.

There is a category of supporter for whom a community heritage-pub revival is exactly the kind of cause they already back: regional Tasmanian philanthropists, foundations, hospitality and food/wine figures, arts and heritage patrons, and Huon Valley benefactors. The purpose of this strategy is to engage that small group honestly and at Stage-1 altitude — to secure the credibility, networks, expertise, and (carefully) the philanthropic funding that lets the feasibility work happen, without ever crossing into “invest in our pub.”

2. The Stage-1 constraint, stated plainly

The public message is “We’re asking — not announcing. No money is being raised.” That message is correct and must stay intact. This strategy operates alongside it, not against it, by observing three rules:

1. The feasibility fund is a donation, not an investment. A gift funds the cost of finding out. It is not a stake, not redeemable, and earns nothing. Donors are thanked and acknowledged (if they wish); they are never promised anything in return.
2. It is a private, relational track — not a public solicitation. There is no “donate” button on the public site and no public fundraising campaign at Stage 1. Approaches are one-to-one, warm, and made by named people (Billie / steering), not by mass mailout.
3. Every approach leads with the non-financial asks. The headline invitation is to champion, connect, or contribute expertise. The feasibility-fund ask is offered only where it fits, and always framed as funding the inquiry.

3. The ask architecture — a tiered “ways to help” ladder

We offer a ladder, not a single ask. People self-select the rung that fits them, and many will start on a lower rung and move up as trust builds.

The four tiers are designed so that the most valuable contributions (credibility, networks, expertise) are framed as the primary invitation and cost the project nothing in integrity. The money tier is real but deliberately sits at the bottom of the ladder, not the top.

4. The feasibility fund — framing and hard guardrails

If and when a feasibility fund is opened, it must satisfy all of the following before a single approach is made:

• Donation mechanics, reviewed. Whether gifts are held by the steering group, an auspice body, or a future entity — and whether any tax-deductibility is claimed — is a legal/tax question for advice, not an assumption. Do not state or imply deductibility, charitable status, or a specific holding vehicle until confirmed. (TODO — adviser.)
• Restricted purpose. Gifts are solicited for, and spent only on, the named Stage-2 professional studies. If the project stops, unspent funds are dealt with transparently per a pre-agreed rule (refund / redirect / donate onward) — decided before any gift is accepted. (CHOICE — steering, with advice.)
• No quid pro quo. A gift confers no governance rights, no priority in any future membership or capital instrument, and no commercial advantage. Say this out loud to every donor.
• Transparency. What was raised and what it paid for is reported back to the community. Donors may be acknowledged publicly only with their consent.
• Language discipline. Never “invest”, “return”, “stake”, “shares”, “get in early”, “founding investor”. Always “gift”, “donation”, “support the feasibility work”, “help us find out”.

Until the mechanics above are resolved with professional advice, the feasibility-fund tier stays on paper only — champions, connectors, and pro-bono asks can proceed; money asks cannot.

5. Segmentation — who we’re talking to

Detailed, named prospects (with public-record sources, suggested tier, and a warm entry point) live in major-supporters-prospect-list.md. The archetypes:

• Huon Valley / Cygnet benefactors — local notable residents, successful local businesses, people with a direct stake in the town’s future. Strongest “why you” hook; usually best approached as Patron/Connector first.
• Tasmanian philanthropic foundations & trusts — bodies with published, contestable giving programs. Approached through their actual grant processes, not as personal favours.
• Tasmanian business figures with a giving record — people publicly associated with regional/community generosity.
• Hospitality / food / wine / whisky figures — a natural cultural fit for a community pub; strong as Champions and Pro-bono operators.
• Arts & heritage patrons — drawn by the heritage-building dimension.
• Expatriate Tasmanians — notable people with a Huon or Tasmanian-heritage tie who may welcome a way to give back.

6. Sequencing and cadence

1. Warm before cold. Map who in the steering group / community already knows a prospect. A warm introduction precedes any direct approach.
2. Champions first, money later. Secure two or three credible champions before opening any feasibility-fund conversations — their endorsement de-risks every later approach.
3. One conversation at a time. No mass outreach. Each approach is briefed, made, and logged individually (see the kit’s recap template).
4. Gate the money tier. No feasibility-fund ask until §4’s mechanics are resolved and steering has signed off.
5. Steward continuously. Supporters hear back whether or not they give — updates, thanks, and honest news including setbacks.

7. Roles and ownership

• Billie (steering lead) owns the relationship strategy and is the default first point of contact. (He/him.)
• Steering group signs off the prospect list, the fund mechanics, and any public acknowledgement of a supporter.
• Legal/governance seat owns the §4 fund-mechanics questions and the tax/deductibility question.
• No one freelances an approach. Every approach is logged so the project never double-approaches or contradicts itself.

8. Stewardship and ethics

• No strings, both ways. We accept no gift that comes with conditions incompatible with one-member-one-vote community ownership. We offer no donor anything that compromises that principle.
• Decline gracefully. A “no” is a relationship preserved, not a door closed. Thank, log, leave it open.
• Conflicts of interest. If a prospect is also a potential vendor, operator, adviser-for-fee, or has any commercial interest in the outcome, flag it and manage it per the governance COI process.
• Reputational due diligence. Before approaching, a quick public-record check that association with the prospect won’t damage community trust. The prospect list flags known cautions.
• Privacy. The prospect list is internal and Access-protected. It holds public-record information only. It is never published.

9. Risk register

10. What never to say

These are hard stops — same spirit as message_house.md, adapted for supporter conversations:

1. “Invest in the pub” / “founding investor” / “get in early” / “you’ll get it back with interest.” No investment exists. This would be false and legally dangerous.
2. “You’ll get a return / dividend / shares / a stake.” A gift earns nothing and confers nothing.
3. “The pub is for sale” / a specific price. Not confirmed. Do not say it.
4. “This will definitely happen.” Stage 1 is a question. Setbacks are possible and we say so.
5. “Your gift is tax-deductible.” Not until confirmed by advice. Do not imply charitable/DGR status.
6. Anything implying the gift buys influence over a future co-operative. It does not.

11. What success looks like at Stage 1

Success is not a dollar figure. It is:

• two or three credible champions willing to be associated with the project;
• a handful of warm introductions that the project couldn’t have made itself;
• one or more pro-bono professional commitments toward the Stage-2 inputs;
• and, only if the fund mechanics are resolved, enough philanthropic support to commission the feasibility studies — reported transparently to the community.

If the honest conclusion of the feasibility work is “no”, these relationships are stewarded to a graceful close, not exploited.

12. Related documents

• major-supporters-kit.md — the practical outreach kit (briefs, conversation guide, leave-behind, templates)
• major-supporters-prospect-list.md — named, researched prospects (public-record only)
• ../docs/strategy/message_house.md — canonical messaging and hard stops
• ../docs/strategy/kitchen_table_kit.md — the community-conversation companion to this kit
• grants-funding-scan.md — institutional/grant funding landscape
• contribution-ladder.md — how EOI capacity tiers map to involvement
• The draft pre-feasibility study (admin vault → Feasibility) — the source of the Stage-2 cost picture